Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121006
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
by melanie eversley later. you probably heard what happened in pennsylvania regarding their voter i.d. law and we will talk to her about that. we also want to take time to let you know that on our other channels on the weekend, book- tv and american history tv, we look at cities across the united states. our focus this time around is augusta, maine. not only do you get a sense of meeting the people and learning about individual cities and what makes them interesting, here is a little bit of a preview from tonight's program. [video clip] >> this is the first parish church in brunswick, maine. it is significant to the story of a uncle tom's cabin. in many ways, the story began here. it is here in pew #23 that harriet beecher stowe, by her account, saw the vision of uncle tom being whipped to to death. he is the title character, the hero of her 1852 novel," uncle tom's cabin." the story is that there is -- there was a slave, a good slave, sold by his first kind owner, mr. shelby, and he sold him to pay debts on his plantation through a series of misadventures, you might say, he ends up in the
. there were people in legal law firm conference rom, they could get an internet connection. people in starbucks where they could get an internet connection. people working at the kitchen tables around town. and all of a sudden, right around april 1st. bestart moving to the headquarter. this is literally six week aways from the announcement. and this just this big space. bigger than the room. far bigger than the room. three or four times of the size of the room. it was a whole floor of the high-rise building in chicago, and it was just kind of remarkable. we didn't have everybody in. we were slowly bringing people in. literally we were still getting the servers up. we had telephones ringing and people try to answer phone calls. we had e-mail coming in to our e-mail address. we didn't have a system to receive e nail a real way that you would want. we had many coming many. we didn't have budgets. and we had, you know, we had constituency leaders calling our political department because they wanted to have time with the candidate, we had our fundraisers, who had to raise money with the
campaign finance should be regulated, the current state of affairs is that the law is unclear and no one knows if the decisions will stand or get knocked down. it is insane, the wild west. it bodes poorly for us to understand what powers are at work. it is worth mentioning the stock act recently passed which will have new information for us to sink our teeth into a realm financial disclosures. financial transactions have to be disclosed monthly. there are certain things in their we worry about. that is a whole nother set of information. the third thing i want to mention is how political power functions. , the structure of the political dialogue. right now it is a mess. this is not the rules committee fault. in ways it is obama's fault. this is something to think about as you think about how the house works and what kind of tools we should build on the outside. when i look at the different categories of congressional information, it to the things we worked hard on, one is taking advantage of political pressures that exist. nonprofits would love to be able to create political pressure. we
and enforcement of environmental laws, the ban on the xl pipeline, the enforcement of labor laws -- those policies have killed thousands and thousands of jobs and collectively, we are making it incredibly difficult for small businesses to thrive, much less survive. >> so if you have 65% of spending going to individual payments, what would you do to try to reduce that? >> in order to create more jobs, we have to control the national debt. i think that is what we have to do. i have said it from the beginning. i have given a plan to try to deal with it. this idea that somehow mr. cruz is lecturing us on standing on our own feet, i find incredible. he spent most of your adult life working for the government. you have not created jobs. you have not on your own business. i have. my wife and i own a retail store. we did not have the federal government with their boots on our neck. when george bush was president, we lost 700,000 jobs per month. all these programs were in place at the time. the only addition is the health care act, which has not been fully implemented. i think that you have a selective mem
the warren act that just took place where there are blatant violations of the law, i wouldn't put anything past this administration. >> you know, these are sitting members of congress. >> yeah. >> alan west won, of course. we know his party. he's very conservative nap said, john mccain. are you surprised by his comments? >> i'm very surprised by his comment. all of those comments, they're not just deeply irresponsible, but without a shred of evidence they are casting doubt about a very important number in our economy. now, if you understand the way the bureau of labor statistics collects data, and i used to work for the department of labor, and i used to work for the executive office of the white house. the firewalls are impenetrable and this is an institution that's been delivering day reports with as much integrity as you can imagine for decade upon decade. never any suggestion of political bias that's had anything close to substantiation. so if you think -- i'm a little bit -- this has gotten under my skin, alex. if you think that there's something going on there, and you don't have a s
, charles -- i referenced the religious freedom restoration act. it was a law passed virtually unanimously by congress, signed by president clinton in 1993 in order to restore the scope of religious freedom that had existed. it was struck down as applied to the states in 1997 but still applied to the federal government. i think we have already had two earlier decisions from district court on the merits of that, both of them involving private for-profit plaintiffs, and the issue is split just among those first two courts. there are procedural issues because of the ongoing regulatory process that might create a sort of interim step, but that actually is probably going to get resolved between now and august 1, 2013. the administrative process will be done, and the courts will invariably go straight to the merits, and you will start to get married decisions uniformly by the end of next year. >> does that depend on what the administration does and who wins and all that? >> not really. what the administration has put into play by virtue of the regulatory process is a relatively limited piece of
to the top of the harvard law review and a blind test becomes a top editor there. everything he has done as clean as a whistle. he's never broken a law comment on it or want from a perfect father american and all they do is crash the guy. >> so that is the bar now been set for the presidency. he hasn't broken any law. okay, i think we all can accept the nomination for presidency. look, the only trashing that has been done over the last three and a half years is to our economy and to our international stature and that has been done by this president. and actually, chris, i personally have complimented president obama many times and i'll be listened to my radio show now i share to do a fair amount. look, president obama might not know a lot about economics, but he does a mean karaoke. siliceous celebrate that. let's all hold hearings. mus back so in love with you. ♪ ishat all? come on. imagine mitt romney doing that. ♪ i'm so in love with you. >> i'm sorry, you've got to give it to both sides. our second obamagasm award. there's a priester, i can go to confession. goes to someone who c
amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. let me be simple about this. my state of north carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from massachusetts, which you just asked about. there is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. there's nothing -- it's nothing but a political tool and it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue we should not be dividing america on. we ought to be talking about issues like healthcare and jobs and what's happening in iraq. not using an issue that divides this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. it's wrong. >> mr. vice president, you have 90 seconds. >> well, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. i appreciate that very much. >> you're welcome. you're welcome. >> that's it? >> that's it. >> ok. then we'll move on to the next question. this one is for you, mr. vice president. george bush has de
, massively destructive, and yet it seems that after it all happens, we passed some laws, some stuff happens in the background and that's when the lobbyists come in and that's when all the people who can wield their supposed expertise has this powerful tool to destroy attempts to reign in the banks. if you're home watching and feel like we're throwing around terms, i'll explain them. this stuff is understandable, it really is. it's really, really vitally important. alexis. >> i wanted to mention that mitt romney says he wants more transparency, leverage limits. i was excited to hear that but i was confused. when people talk about transparency in relationship to the dodd-frank, it's about plus rules. plus execution facilities which are like exchanges where derivatives are supposed to get more transparency. the republicans in the house and the senate have been making themselves very busy trying to gut those rules. this is something i debated on the show. there's a couple of different bills. but what mitt romney said that he wants transparency, he's not consistent with what he sees from his pee
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)